I came across http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html, “Critiques Of Libertarianism” and couldn’t hep but respond in some fashion. The following is what I sent to the site’s author.
Gotta tell ya, Mike, I haven’t seen such a rambling, disjointed, superficial critique of Libertarianism <http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html> in a long time.
You make the mistake of assuming that because we Libertarians don’t march lockstep, that it’s impossible to nail down just what libertarianism is. Too many different kinds of libertarianism, you say. Incoherent.
“This diversity of libertarian viewpoints can make it quite difficult to have a coherent discussion with them, because an argument that is valid for or against one type of libertarianism may not apply to other types.“
As “…ians” go, you’re obviously an authoritarian (pretty much the opposite of libertarian.) You gratuitously state that it’s difficult to have a “coherent discussion” with libertarians. Just try having a “coherent” discussion with authoritarians some time. One authoritarian says we should have prayer in school and another authoritarian says absolutely not. Some authoritarians want guns strictly controlled while others do not. Talk about incoherent! You authoritarians take the prize.
There’s your biggest mistake. You must employ the “left-right” or “liberal-conservative” dichotomy, which leaves libertarianism as some odd, way-out-there, doesn’t-really-fit anywhere philosophy. In actuality, “right” and “left” (or “liberal” and “conservative”) are just two sides of the same authoritarian coin.
If you must use a two-dimensional political spectrum, then picture one running from libertarian on one end to totalitarian on the other. Everything in between is just degrees of authoritarianism. The purposes for which government power is sought are irrelevant. It matters little to me whether you want to make me pray 12 times a day or want me to labor all day long for “society” so that government bureaucrats can dispense largesse to the deserving (who, coincidentally, turn out to be mostly bureaucrats).
Viewed as a spectrum of varying authoritarianism, you end up with “less government” types at one end and “more government” types at the other. Libertarians are at the “less government” end. All quite coherent.
“Many libertarian arguments are like fundamentalist arguments:”
“Fundamentalist?” Would that be Fundamentalist authoritarians? Fundamentalist Girl Scouts? Fundamentalist Muslims? “Fundamentalist” who or what? Oh, Bible thumpers. I’m sorry, you were revealing an anti-religious, or possibly just anti-Christian bias.
Too often you ask questions but then do not bother with answers:
“If we adopt this libertarian policy, there will be benefits: but what will the disadvantages be? Are libertarians reinventing what we already have, only without safeguards?”
Libertarians are more than happy to address the “disadvantages” that the short-sighted may see in Libertarianism. [Forgive the gratuitous slap at those who don’t believe as I do. I just wanted you to see what it’s like since your piece is chock full of such insults.] One person’s safeguards are another’s straightjacket. The “safety net” can also be a snare.
Everything is hypothetical until it’s been tried. Your position is that since Libertarianism hasn’t been tried, we don’t dare! Too many unknowns!! Ooooohh, scarry! (“Libertarians …are utopian because there has never yet been a libertarian society… These two facts should not keep us from considering libertarian ideas seriously, however they do caution us about accepting them for practical purposes. “) I.e., let’s not actually try these out.
“Libertarians are a small group whose beliefs are unknown to and not accepted by the vast majority.”
Two points: 1) Libertarians’ beliefs can hardly be “accepted” if they are unknown. Being unknown is not the same as being either unaccepted (rejected) or unacceptable. 2) In truth, a great many people have Libertarian tendencies now and then, they just don’t know these as “libertarian.” “Live and let live.” “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” “Mind your own business.” And, if I may quote Rodney King: “Can’t we all just get along?” These are all very libertarian ideas.
Incidentally, lots of authoritarians are as “Utopian” as anyone ever. The belief, in the face of centuries of experience to the contrary, that government can make everything perfect for everybody, is quite persistent, utopian, pie-in-the-sky and, frankly, laughable.
As for your numbered “libertarian” assertions go, I’m only going to address a few. I don’t have the time that some of my libertarian friends do to address every one.
#1) You assert that the “original intent” of the founders has not been perverted because, well, there is no original intent; the founders opinions varied “… looking to the founders for “original intent” is silly: it will vary amongst them.” Try looking at the founding documents, Mike, that’s where the original intent is well documented in plain English. No, the founders did not each get exactly what they would have preferred. They did, as you noted, compromise. The intent of that compromise was put into writing in the Constitution. You err in asserting that the “intent” is to be found other than in the Constitution itself.
“The Constitution leaves the method of its interpretation by the court entirely to the court to decide.” That’s a flat-out lie. Try reading Article III some time. There is nothing therein about the Supreme Court deciding constitutionality issues. That power was usurped by the court in Marbury v Madison. The court invented “judicial review” just as you seem to have invented a new constitutional provision.
#2) You assert that the U.S. government does not ignore the plain meaning of the constitution. Well, no, it’s more like you assert that there is no plain meaning. Or that there are an infinite number of plain meanings that can be divined, depending on the person doing the divining. (You seem to jump back and forth between these positions.) For some reason, you believe that libertarians’ understanding of the constitution is flawed. (‘Libertarian claims of “plain meaning” are often clearly shaped by their beliefs.’) Yet the judges you would have interpret the meaning clearly do so as influenced by their own beliefs — and you find no fault with that — presumably because you find no fault with their interpretation, based, of course, on your own befuddled beliefs.
The meaning of “Congress shall make no law…” does not change over time. The meaning is plain. It is only courts, looking to do something that is forbidden by the Constitution, that interpret this very clear prohibition to include “except when congress has a compelling interest. ” Why do you think there are so many 5-4 supreme court decisions. Why are they always carving out “narrow” opinions or exceptions? Because they are inventing ways around the plain meaning of the Constitution, that’s why.
#4) “The foremost defenders of our freedoms and rights, which libertarians prefer you overlook, are our governments.” Hardee-har-har! Governments throughout the world, and ours in the USA is no exception, are the leading violators of rights. Always have been, always will.
IBM and General Motors can’t deny citizens their right to a trial by a jury of their peers, only government can and does that routinely. All the corporations in the Fortune 500 can’t kick in my door in the middle of the night based on some anonymous tip; government agents can.
Who passed Jim Crow laws? Government. Who passed anti-Chinese laws? Who turned their collective heads and refused to enforce the laws once racial discrimination became unlawful? Government. Who uses racial profiling to stop people for “driving while black?” Government. Who broke countless treaties with American Indians? Government. And who is even now ignoring numerous Constitutional restrictions? Government.
I’ll make this my last one: “It would be foolish to oppose libertarians on such a mom-and-apple-pie issue as freedom and rights: better to point out that there are EFFECTIVE alternatives with a historical track record, something libertarianism lacks.”
One cannot help but wonder just how totalitarian you are. “Effective alternatives” to freedom and rights?
So, to sum up, you lie about what libertarianism is, you lie about the Constitution. You’re so deluded that you think government is the “foremost defender” of our rights when in fact the opposite is true. Oh, yeah, and you think there are “effective alternatives” to rights. Good grief. Get a clue.
“The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false.” — Paul Johnson